Service Rang & Namen

Die groe

Testbersicht

Quell-Gerte

Service: Rang & Namen
Mission DAC 5 02/93 Museatex Meitner IDAT 07/93 Musical Fidelity A 3 (Upsampler) 08/02 Musical Fidelity X 24 k 06/99 Musical Fidelity X-DAC 08/97 Orelle DA 188 08/97 Parasound D/AC 2000 03/96 Parasound D/AC 800 03/94 Perpetual Technol. P 3 A (auch 96 kHz) Philips DAC 960 09/87 Roksan DA 1/DS 1 07/93 Rotel RDP-980 04/96 Sansui PC-X 1 06/84 Sonic Frontiers SFD 2 Mk II 12/95 Sony DAS-R 1 10/91 Sony PCM-1 05/79 Sony PCM-601 ESD 05/87 Sony PCM-701 ES 06/83 Stax DAC Talent 07/91 Stax DAC-X 1t 11/90 T + A DD 1210R 07/00 T + A PreDA 3000 05/96 Teac D-3 12/95 Teac D-500 10/91 Teac D-70 (Upsampler) 08/02 Teac D-700 05/93 Teac D-T 1 04/96 Technics SL-Z 1000 10/91 Technics SV-110 06/84 Vimak DS 1800 11/92 Vimak DS 2000 11/92 Wadia 25 07/96 Wadia 27 i 04/495 11/13250 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 53-55 Punkte, frher as26 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 43-45 43-45 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 50/40 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher asD/A-Wandler 57 mit Betamax SLO-320 AC-3,DTS, MPEG-2 Wandler-VV D/A-Wandler

integr. Vorverstrker

Digital-Analog-Wandler
Name Heft Preis in Punkte Bemerkungen Name Heft
Preis in Punkte Bemerkungen
Accuphase DC 300 01/97 Accustic Arts DAC 1 11/00 Accustic Arts DAC I 03/01 Acram Delta Black Box 5 11/92 Alpine AP-6000 06/84 Arcam Delta 04/89 Audio Alchemy DAC in the Box 04/96 Audio Alchemy DAC Man 04/96 Audio Alchemy DDE v 1.0 11/91 AudioNET DAC 09/95 AVM Evolution DAC 1.2 05/95 AVM Evolution DAC I 02/93 Burmester 871 Mk II 03/91 Burmester 920 11/92 Burmester 980 02/99 Burr Brown/Albs 11/92 Cambridge DAC 3 08/97 Camtech D/A Wandler 12/96 Camtech Digital Analog Wandler 11/93 CEC DA-1 05/93 Cello Reference 09/97 Denon DA-500 11/94 Denon DA-S 1 08/93 Electrocompaniet ECD 1 (Upsampler) Enlightened Audio Designs DSP 7000 Enlightened Audio Designs DSP-1000 Linn Numerik 07/93 Linn Numerik '95 07/95 Madrigal Proceed PDP III 11/92 Madrigal Proceed Wandler 2 10/91 Mark Levinson No. 30.6 12/99 Mark Levinson No. 35 12/93 Mark Levinson No. 36 S 07/97 Mark Levinson No. 360 07/99

6000 08/02 07/92 09/6500

57 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 43-45 43-45 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as49-51 Punkte, frher as2 53-55 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as61

Wandler-VV

Accuphase T-105 Accuphase T-107 Aiwa AT-9500 E Akai AT-93 Akai AT-A 301 Akai AT-S 06 Akai AT-S 61 Akai AT-S 7 Akai PS-200 T Benytone MT 4000 Braun T 1 Braun T 2 Braun T 501 Braun TS 501 Burmester Concerto FM Tuner Burmester Rondo 993
12/81 04/86 12/81 03/89 12/85 12/81 12/82 11/83 12/79 12/82 02/81 12/82 06/81 11/80 01/93 11/99

2375 2150

33-35 Punkte, frher s2 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 15-17 Punkte, frher m1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om
33-35 Punkte, frher s2 40
59 D/A-Wandler 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1
Digital-Analog-Wandler Tuner Digital-Tuner CD-Player CD-Wechsler Mini-CD-Player DVD-A/DVD-/SACD-Player MP3-Player

Seite 9 10

1 stereoplay 2004

www.stereoplay.de

Burmester Rondo 993 Cyrus FM 7.5 Denon TU-1500 RD Denon TU-260 Denon TU-380 RD Denon TU-400 Denon TU-460 Denon TU-580 RD Denon TU-600 Denon TU-717 Denon TU-767 Denon TU-800 Denon TU-900 Denon TU-S 10 Dual CT 1280 Dual CT 1450 Fisher FM 860 Fisher FM-67 Fisher FM-890 Goldstar GST-9320 Grundig Fine Arts T 9000 Grundig Fine Arts T 903 Grundig Fine Arts T 907 Grundig Fine Arts T A38654 Grundig MT 200 Grundig ST 2000 Grundig ST 6000 Grundig ST 6500 Grundig T 12 Grundig T 30 Grundig T 301 Grundig T 35 Grundig T 8200 Harman/Kardon Citation 23 Harman/Kardon TU 615 Harman/Kardon TU 909 Harman/Kardon TU 915 Hitachi FT-007 Hitachi FT-3 Mk II Hitachi FT-5500 Hitachi FT-5500 Mk II Hitachi FT-8000 JVC FX-310 L JVC FX-50 L JVC T-X 200 L JVC T-X 200 L JVC T-X 55 JVC T-X 900 L K + H FM 2002 Kenwood Basic T 2 Kenwood KT-1000 Kenwood KT-1100 Kenwood KT-1100 SD Kenwood KT-2020 L Kenwood KT-3050 L Kenwood KT-3080 Kenwood KT-3300 D Kenwood KT-413 Kenwood KT-5020 L Kenwood KT-6040 Kenwood KT-6050 RDS Kenwood KT-660 L Kenwood KT-7 X Kenwood KT-7020 Kenwood KT-74 Kenwood KT-880 L Kenwood KT-9 X Kenwood KT-900 Kenwood KT-917 Kenwood KT-980 F Kenwood KT-990 D Kenwood KTF-3010 Kenwood L-01 T Kenwood L-02 T Kirksaeter LAB FM 10 Krting ST-103 KS T 22 Loewe SX-6198 Luxman T-102 L Luxman T-4 Luxman T-530 Marantz ST 17 Marantz ST 300 Marantz ST 40 Marantz ST 530 Marantz ST 551 Marantz ST 72 L McIntosh MR 500 08/02 03/00 04/01 07/91 10/94 11/86 11/89 08/93 10/86 12/85 08/85 05/88 06/81 04/98 11/86 02/81 11/86 08/84 10/86 07/91 09/87 11/87 11/91 10/93 12/81 12/82 06/81 04/83 04/96 12/84 07/91 12/85 03/87 11/87 12/82 07/90 04/85 11/87 10/86 04/82 08/85 06/81 07/90 10/86 08/84 12/84 12/82 10/84 12/81 04/84 06/81 04/83 04/85 07/90 08/93 04/96 05/87 11/80 07/90 11/91 04/94 11/88 12/82 11/89 12/85 08/85 12/82 12/81 01/81 04/86 05/88 03/98 01/81 09/82 04/83 12/82 12/81 02/81 10/86 11/80 12/82 04/98 12/79 07/91 12/83 12/85 10/94 10/17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 9-11 Punkte, frher m2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 9-11 Punkte, frher m 9-11 Punkte, frher m 9-11 Punkte, frher m 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 17-19 Punkte, frher om 9-11 Punkte, frher m 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 9-11 Punkte, frher m2 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 43-45 43-45 43-45 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 43-45 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 17-19 Punkte, frher om 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 9-11 Punkte, frher m 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 33-35 Punkte, frher s37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 17-19 Punkte, frher om 9-11 Punkte, frher m 17-19 Punkte, frher om 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s29-31 Punkte, frher s3 17-19 Punkte, frher om 15-17 Punkte, frher m1 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 9-11 Punkte, frher m McIntosh MR 80 Meridian 204 Meridian 504 Metz SX 4961 Mission Cyrus NAD 4130 NAD 414 NAD 4150 Naim NAT 01 mit NA PST Nakamichi ST-7 E Onkyo PT-33 Onkyo T-35 Onkyo T-4015 Onkyo T-4017 Onkyo T-4051 RDS Onkyo T-411 Onkyo T-411 Onkyo T-4230 Onkyo T-4270 Onkyo T-4310 R Onkyo T-4511 Onkyo T-4670 Onkyo T-4830 Onkyo T-4850 Onkyo T-4970 Onkyo T-9060 Onkyo T-9900 Onkyo T-9990 Philips F 2610 Philips FT 564 Philips FT 670 Philips FT 880 Philips FT 930 Philips FT 980 Pioneer F-225 Pioneer F-303 RDS Pioneer F-304 Pioneer F-5 L Pioneer F-656 Pioneer F-676 Pioneer F-737 Pioneer F-77 Pioneer F-9 Pioneer F-90 Pioneer F-93 Pioneer F-99 X Pioneer TX-930 Pioneer TX-9800 Pioneer TX-D 1000 Quad FM 4 Revox B 260 Revox B 260 S Revox B 261 Revox B 760 Rotel RHT-10 Rotel RT-425 SAE 8000 Sansui TU-301i Sansui TU-S 9 Sansui TU-X 1 Scott 570 T Sequerra Day Sequerra Model 1 Sherwood TX 5090 RDS Siemens RH 310 Siemens RH 666 Sony ST SB 920 Sony ST-J 75 Sony ST-J 88 B Sony ST-S 361 Sony ST-S 415 Sony ST-S 444 ES Sony ST-S 505 ES Sony ST-S 555 ES Sony ST-S 700 ES Sony ST-SA 3 ES Sony ST-SE 700 QS Sphinx Myth 7 Tandberg TPT 3001 Tandberg TPT 3011 Technics ST-600 Technics ST-610 Technics ST-G 4 Technics ST-G 40 Technics ST-G 5 Technics ST-G 560 Technics ST-G 6 T Technics ST-G 90 10/83 04/90 07/95 02/81 10/86 10/86 04/96 04/83 10/86 11/85 12/82 12/81 11/83 07/83 04/94 08/93 10/93 12/85 12/85 04/96 03/98 11/89 07/91 11/91 12/92 04/82 10/84 11/87 12/82 03/87 07/90 01/89 08/93 11/91 07/90 10/94 04/96 12/81 11/89 11/91 01/89 10/86 06/81 10/83 11/91 08/85 12/82 09/79 11/80 04/83 01/88 12/89 05/83 12/81 09/94 10/78 06/79 11/88 06/81 12/81 11/79 11/89 10/83 04/01 08/92 03/80 07/00 12/82 12/81 04/96 10/94 08/85 04/94 07/83 11/87 11/99 03/98 02/99 12/81 04/82 03/89 07/91 12/85 11/86 12/84 11/89 08/85 01/500 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 17-19 Punkte, frher om 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 15-17 Punkte, frher m1 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 um 17-19 Punkte, frher om 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 9-11 Punkte, frher m 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 25-27 Punkte, frher s4 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 29-31 Punkte, frher s43-45 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 17-19 Punkte, frher om 43-45 43-45 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 um 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 29-31 Punkte, frher s3 33-35 Punkte, frher s2 17-19 Punkte, frher om 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 9-11 Punkte, frher m

u. SP 8/89

Photo Photo-CD-Spieler

6 stereoplay 2004

Sony CDP-R 1/DAS-R 1 Sony CDP-R 1a Sony CDP-S 207 Sony CDP-S 27 Sony CDP-X 202 ES Sony CDP-X 229 ES Sony CDP-X 303 Sony CDP-X 33 ES Sony CDP-X 333 ES Sony CDP-X 555 ES Sony CDP-X 7 ESD Sony CDP-X 707 ES Sony CDP-X 77 ES Sony CDP-X 777 ES Sony CDP-XA 2 ES Sony CDP-XA 30 ES Sony CDP-XA 50 ES Sony CDP-XA 55 Sony CDP-XA 7 ES Sony CDP-XA-3 ES Sony CDP-XB 630 Sony CDP-XB 720 Sony CDP-XB 720 Sony CDP-XB 920 Sony CDP-XB 930 Sony CDP-XE 210 Sony CDP-XE 220 Sony CDP-XE 320 Sony CDP-XE 330 Sony CDP-XE 510 Sony CDP-XE 530 Sony CDP-XE 700 Sony CDP-XE-500 Sony CDP-XE-800 Sony CDP-XE-900 Sony CDP-XS 20 ES Sony DP-997 Sphinx Myth 9 Sphinx Project 32 Stax CDP T + A CD 1200 R T + A CD 1220 R T + A CD 1230 R T + A CD 2000 AC T + A CD 3000 T + A CM 3000 T + A PreCD 2000 AC T + A CD 1240 R T+A CM 1200 R TAG McLaren CD 20 R Teac AD-5 (mit eingbautem CR) Teac CD 5 Teac CD-P 3450 SE Teac CD-P 3500 Teac CD-P 4000 Teac CD-P 4500 Teac CD-Z 5000 Teac P-2 S Teac P-500 Teac P-70 Teac P-700 Teac PD-11 Teac PD-155 Teac PD-200 Teac PD-450 Teac PD-470 Teac PD-480 Teac VRDS 10 Special Edit. Teac VRDS 20 Teac VRDS 25 Teac VRDS 25X Teac VRDS 9 Teac X-1 S Teac ZD-1000 Teac ZD-5000 Technics HX-1000 Technics SL-P 1 Technics SL-P 10 Technics SL-P 110 Technics SL-P 2000 Technics SL-P 202 A Technics SL-P 212 Technics SL-P 222 Technics SL-P 230 Technics SL-P 277 A Technics SL-P 3 Technics SL-P 300 Technics SL-P 350 06/89 10/91 12/89 02/89 11/93 06/92 10/94 06/90 09/91 04/92 09/89 09/94 06/90 05/91 08/95 08/97 04/97 11/99 07/95 07/96 05/00 03/99 05/00 10/98 05/00 03/98 09/99 03/99 09/99 12/97 09/99 09/97 08/96 10/96 09/96 11/97 02/93 02/99 08/99 08/86 07/94 01/98 08/02 11/92 08/98 05/96 04/92 11/01 01/00 02/99 02/87 01/95 06/97 12/92 03/91 04/93 02/93 12/95 10/91 08/02 05/93 09/84 11/88 08/86 01/88 04/89 07/90 07/96 07/95 12/96 01/99 10/97 07/93 04/87 01/87 10/91 12/84 06/83 11/86 02/94 03/89 03/89 04/89 07/88 05/90 09/85 05/86 07/375 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as23 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as45-47 Punkte, frher as59 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as57 49-51 Punkte, frher as53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as43-45 45-47 Punkte, frher as45-47 Punkte, frher as3 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 49-51 Punkte, frher as49-51 Punkte, frher as2 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as26 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 43-45 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 43-45 43-45 43-45 53-55 Punkte, frher as1 43-45 43-45 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 43-45 43-45 Technics SL-P 420 Technics SL-P 477 Technics SL-P 520 Technics SL-P 7 Technics SL-P 770 Technics SL-P 777 Technics SL-P 8 Technics SL-P 999 Technics SL-PC 20 Technics SL-PG 4 Technics SL-PG 400 A Technics SL-PG 440 A Technics SL-PG 490 Technics SL-PG 520 A Technics SL-PG 540 A Technics SL-PG 560 Technics SL-PG 590 Technics SL-PJ 25 Technics SL-PJ 44 Technics SL-PJ 45 Technics SL-PS 670 A Technics SL-PS 580 Technics SL-PS 620 A Technics SL-PS 670 Technics SL-PS 7 Technics SL-PS 70 Technics SL-PS 770 Technics SL-PS 770 A Technics SL-PS 840 Technics SL-PS 840 Technics SL-PS 900 Telefunken DP 1000 CD Telefunken HS 810 Telefunken HS 895 CD Telefunken HS 970 Telefunken HS 975 Telefunken HS 980 Tensai TAD-160 Tensai TAD-30 Thule Digit Player Thule Spirit Player Thule Spirit Player Toshiba Aurex XR-Z 50 Toshiba Aurex XR-Z 70 Toshiba Aurex XR-Z 90 Toshiba XR-30 Toshiba XR-9117 Toshiba XR-9128 Toshiba XR-9217 Toshiba XR-9219 Toshiba XR-9318 Toshiba XR-V 22 Transtec 6114 CD Uher UCD 410 R Uher UCD-410 R Universum AD 2000 Universum AD 2002 Universum DP 2351 Universum DP 4371 Vincent CD S 6 Wadia 16 Wadia 20 Wadia 270 Wadia 301 Wadia 301 Wadia 830 Wadia 850 Yamaha CD-1 Yamaha CD-2 Yamaha CD-3 Yamaha CD-400 Yamaha CDC-615 Yamaha CDS-900 Yamaha CD-X 1 Yamaha CDX-1100 Yamaha CDX-1110 Yamaha CDX-2020 Yamaha CDX-396 Yamaha CDX-496 Yamaha CDX-5000 Yamaha CDX-510 Yamaha CDX-560 Yamaha CDX-580 Yamaha CDX-590 Yamaha CDX-593 Yamaha CDX-596 Yamaha CDX-660 Yamaha CDX-700 05/92 07/90 03/87 02/84 06/88 03/89 02/84 06/89 08/89 03/02 06/91 06/94 03/99 12/92 05/94 11/94 08/99 12/88 09/87 11/88 10/95 02/97 04/93 09/97 10/00 10/90 06/97 08/96 11/93 10/94 09/91 05/90 02/89 06/91 03/87 06/89 03/87 07/88 08/86 09/98 10/97 02/99 06/84 02/84 03/83 04/87 01/88 09/88 07/88 02/90 02/89 08/85 02/89 12/91 02/92 09/84 12/84 01/86 01/88 11/02 03/95 07/96 04/98 08/02 11/02 07/98 09/97 06/83 09/84 05/85 11/86 03/91 11/87 02/84 09/87 06/88 12/89 05/00 05/00 10/87 07/88 09/92 11/94 06/97 11/98 05/00 04/93 04/500 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 43-45 43-45 43-45 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s37-39 Punkte, frher s1 45-47 Punkte, frher as37-39 Punkte, frher s1 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 45-47 Punkte, frher as43-45 43-45 43-45 45-47 Punkte, frher as45-47 Punkte, frher as47 45-47 Punkte, frher as45-47 Punkte, frher as3 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 49-51 Punkte, frher as2 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s43-45 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 37-39 Punkte, frher s53-55 Punkte, frher as1 53-55 Punkte, frher as43-45 43-45 43-45 43-45 45-47 Punkte, frher as3 43-45 43-45 43-45 43-45 43-46 43-45 43-45 37-39 Punkte, frher s1 45-47 Punkte, frher as45-47 Punkte, frher as3 43-45

DVD-A/DVD/SACD

Accuphase DP 100 + DC 101 02/01 Aiwa DV-370 12/00 Arcam DV 27 06/02 Arcam DV 88 02/02 Arcam DV 88 Plus 04/03 California Audio Labs CL 20 11/98 Class CD/DVD 1 11/01 Denon DVD 1000 04/01 Denon DVD 1400 11/03 Denon DVD 2900 08/03 Denon DVD-2500 01/00 Denon DVD-3000 07/98 Denon DVD-3300 01/01 Denon DVD-A 1 08/02 Grundig GDP 6150 05/02 Grundig GDV 130 04/01 Grundig GDV 200 N 12/00 Grundig GTV 1000 05/99 Grundig Livance GDP 3200 07/02 Grundig Xenaro GDP 4200 03/03 Harman DVD 25 11/03 Harman/Kardon DVD 1 07/00 Harman/Kardon DVD 30 06/03 JVC DVD 9000 09/01 JVC XV 523 12/00 JVC XV D 723 01/01 JVC XV NP 1 11/03 JVC XV S 57 SL 07/02 JVC XV SA 72 12/01 JVC XV-E 111 09/02 Kenwood DVF 9050 12/01 Kenwood DVF-5020 12/00 Kenwood DVF-9010 05/99 Kenwood DVF-R 7030 01/01 Kenwood DVF-R 9030 01/01 Kiss DP 500 (auch Net-Player!) 06/03 Lexikon RT 10 06/03 LG DVD 3351 (auch f. MP3-CDs) 12/00 LG DVD 4730 08/01 LG DVD 5184 03/03 Linn Unidisk 1.1 (DVD-V via ext. Decoder) Linn Unidisk 2.1 (DVD-V via ext. Decoder) Marantz DV 12 S 2 Marantz DV 17 Marantz DV 4200 Marantz DV 7000 Marantz DV 8300 (inkl. DVD-V1,3) Marantz DVD 6200 Marantz SA 1 Marantz SA 12 S Marantz SA 17 S 1 Mclntosh MVP 831 Meridian 596 Metz DF 71 Microboss DVD 838 Micromega Premium Micromega Reference Micromega Reference DVD Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista NAD T 5501 Onkyo DV SP 501 Onkyo DV SP 800 Onkyo DV-S 555 Onkyo DV-S 939 Onkyo DVS-501 Onkyo DVS-535 Panasonic DVD RA 82 12/03 04/01 05/02 07/00 09/02 01/02 02/01 09/01 05/03 10/00 03/01 04/01 07/01 03/01 01/03 04/03 06/03 07/00 11/03 01/03 05/02 03/01 05/99 12/00 11/02

07/03 10/650 330

65/62 50/44 61/58 61/58 60/58 58/56 59/57 56/51 63/62/52/44 62/62/54/50 54/48 56/42 65/56/54 68/58/56 58/46 54/44 54/46 52/48 54/44 55/46 56/49 54/48 62/52/48 68/58/55 50/42 60/50/48 52/42 52/46 62/54/48 50/44 62/54/50 54/46+ 58/52 62/54/50 62/54/50 55/47 66/66/57/53 52/44 52/44 50/6750 67/66/58/57 58/57 54/48 56/52 64/65/56/52 56/50 64/58 68/57/54 68/58 58/54 59/55 54/45 52(48)/44 56/52 68/61/58 62/55 64/61(CD) 54/50 52/42 62/61/50/48 57/49 67/57/54 56/52 52/44 62/51/48; 90
SACD DVD, auch fr MP3-CD DVD DVD DVD,CD DVD DVD DVD SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD DVD DVD DVD DVD-A-Spieler DVD DVD DVD DVD DVD DVD,CD DVD,CD DVD DVD-A,DVD,CD DVD-A DVD DVD DVD,CD DVD DVD-A DVD DVD-A, 5er-Wechsler DVD DVD DVD DVD DVD,CD SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD DVD DVD DVD,CD 69/68/--/61 SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD 68/67/--/60 SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD DVD DVD DVD Kombigert DVD SACD SACD-Multikanal SACD,CD DVD a. fr MP3-CDs,DVDAopt. DVD DVD DVD SACD,DVD,CD DVD,CD CD, Zweikanal-SACD DVD DVD,CD SACD,DVD-A,DVD,CD DVD DVD-A DVD DVD

9 stereoplay 2004

MP3-Player
Aiwa MM-FX 500 01/01 Aiwa MM-FX 500 10/00 Apple iPod 15GB 10/03 Archos Jukebox Mulitmedia Recorder Archos Jukebox Recorder 07/02 Arp Datacon FT MP 310 07/03 Art Voice 11/99 Compuman JazPiper 11/99 Creative DAP Jukebox 01/01 Creative Jukebox 3 (mit Festplatte) 07/02 Creative Muvo 128 07/03 Creative Nomad Iic 07/01 Creative Zen NX 04/03 Cybercomp MPGenie 11/99 Diamond Rio PMP 300 11/99 Diamond Rio PMP 500 11/99 Freecom Beatman 10/01 Fuji FinePix 40i 02/01 Grundig MP 150 01/01 Grundig MP Axx 11/99 Grundig MP Axx 01/01 Hango PJB 100 07/00 Hango PJB 100 07/02 Hexaglot DAP 64 11/99 Hexaglot Mplayer 3 11/99 Innoplus Phototainer 10/03 Iomega HipZip 01/01 iRiver IHP 100 10/03 Iriver IMP 400 (inkl. UKW-Radio) 09/03 LG AHA FD 770 11/99 LG MF PD 330 11/99 LG MF PD 360 07/01 Loomax 300 M 09/03 Panasonic SL CT 800 09/03 Panasonic SL SX 420 09/03 Panasonic SV-SD 05 07/01 Panasonic SV-SD 75 07/01 Philips EXP 431 (fr 8-cm-MP3-CD-R9 Philips EXP 511 09/03 Philips Expanium (Portable) 11/00 Philips Rush 01/01 Picaone Groovecase 07/03 Pontis MPLAYER 3 11/99 Pontis SP 600 07/01 Q-Sonic PE 8991 10/01 Roadstar PCD 3042 09/03 Samsung MCD HM 920 09/03 Samsung YP NEP 32 01/01 Schneider Mpman F 20 11/99 SonicBlue Rio 600 01/01 SonicBlue Rio 800 07/01 SonicBlue Rio Volt 10/01 Sony CRX 10 U 10/01 Sony D NE 1 09/03 Sony D NF 611 (inkl. UKW/MW-Radio) Teac MP-3000 01/01 Terratec M3P0 02/00 Terratec M3PO GO 10/01 Thomson Lyra 01/01 Thomson PDP 2099 R 09/03 Thomson PDP 2820 (auch MP3 Pro) Waitec Funky 09/03

ww w. b a i r d. c o m
oceans engineering lakes design rivers science watersheds construction
Preliminary Study of Structural Compensation Options for the St. Clair River
February 13, 2009 11238.101

Navigating New Horizons

Prepared for
International Joint Commission

Prepared by

W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd.
For further information please contact Pete Zuzek or Andrew McGillis at (905) 845-5385 11238.000

Version Rev. 0 Rev. 1

Date 15 Dec. Feb. 2009

Status Draft Final

Comments For Review Final Report

Reviewed by PJZ PJZ

Approved by RBN RBN
This report was prepared by W.F. Baird & Associates Coastal Engineers Ltd. for the International Joint Commission. The material in it reflects the judgment of Baird & Associates in light of the information available to them at the time of preparation. Any use which a Third Party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such Third Parties. Baird & Associates accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any Third Party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

B a i rd

A s s o c i a t e s
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.... I 1.0 1.1 1.2 INTRODUCTION... 1 Scope.... 1 Methodology... 1
1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 Methodology for Historic Report Review and Analysis. 1 Methodology for Extant Technology Review... 2 Adjustment of Costs to 2007 Dollars... 2

2.0 2.1

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EXISTING IJC STUDIES.. 4 Fixed Compensation Approaches... 4
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 Submerged Sills.... 4 Fixed Weirs.... 5 Training Walls.... 6

Adaptive Approaches... 7

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 Control gates.... 7 Power Production - Conventional Hydroelectric Dam.. 9 Submerged Training Wall with Inflatable Dam... 9 Ice booms.... 10
Applications Considered on the St. Clair River.. 11
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 Compensation by Sills.... 11 Compensation and Control at Various Locations.. 13 Conventional Hydroelectric Dam... 17 Lengthened Channel Structures in Lake Huron.. 18 Noted Environmental Impacts... 19
3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.0 4.1
SUMMARY OF EXTANT TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE.. 21 River Training Structures Wing Dikes.. 21 Inflatable Weirs.... 23 In-Stream Power Generation... 25 Secondary Benefit Opportunities.. 26 COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGIES... 28 Evaluation Criteria... 28
Structural Compensation Options for the St. Clair River 11238.000

Table of Contents

4.1.1 4.1.2
Engineering Feasibility... 28 Pros and Cons.... 28

Compensation Works... 29

4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 Compensation by Submerged Sills... 29 Fixed Weirs.... 30 River Training - Wing Dikes, Training Walls, and Secondary Benefit Options.... 31
Adaptive Management Approaches... 32
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 System with Control Gates or Inflatable Weirs.. 32 Ice boom.... 33 Conventional Hydroelectric Generation... 34 In-stream Power Generation.... 35

Comparison Summary... 36

References.... 38 APPENDIX A.... 40 APPENDIX B.... 41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study provides a preliminary reconnaissance level review of technology to remediate the impacts of past dredging in the St. Clair River. Structural options that facilitate adaptive management for future flow regulation or provide capacity to mitigate the impacts of variable water supplies were also be reviewed. Refer to the site map in Figure A. The literature review initially focused on historical studies generated by the International Joint Commission (IJC) or other agencies to investigate hydraulic flow modification or additional regulation of water levels in the Great Lakes Basin. These reports spanned the period of 1926 to 1973. In addition, technology and engineering alternatives not previously considered for flow regulation in the connecting channels of the Great Lakes Basin were investigated, including international examples. For the purpose of evaluating the engineering feasibility of the technology, two broad categories were developed to organize the concepts: 1) compensation works, and 2) adaptive management or regulatory works. A brief discussion on the institutional feasibility of the various technologies was generated, including stakeholder impacts, environmental considerations, implementation issues and operational framework. Compensation Works

Figure A St. Clair River

The primary objective for the compensation works is to restore backwater head to a known elevation throughout the Michigan-Huron basin. Three general types of technology were identified, including submerged sills, fixed weirs and river training structures. The feasibility of submerged sills in reducing the conveyance of the St. Clair River has been studied for almost 100 years with desktop approaches, mathematical equations and physical models. Refer to Figure B for an example of a typical sill. Generally the studies conclude backwater head could be restored to the Michigan-Huron basin, however, the reports dont converge on the number of sills or their impact. Advantages of this technology include: no operational costs, minimal maintenance, and no navigation impacts.

Figure B Sill

A significant disadvantage of sills is the impact of sedimentation on the upstream side, which reduces the ability of the structure to generate backwater head. Marine based construction can also be very expensive

Page I

compared to a land-based operation. The impact of the actual surficial sediment substrate and transport regime in the St. Clair River on the proposed structure layout has not been investigated. The cost associated with the construction of four to ten structures in 2007 dollars is $10 to $17 million. This estimate is based on escalating costs reported in 1926 to present day dollars and thus should be considered as an order of magnitude value only, not suitable for budgetary or planning purposes. Baird generated a preliminary estimate based on current unit costs and modern construction techniques for one sill and obtained similar results. A fixed weir is an engineering structure with a crest elevation at or near the upstream water surface. Refer to Figure C. Backwater head is created by limiting the flow of water over the crest. Weirs are traditional engineering structures and provided their crest elevation and spatial footprint are optimized, a desired backwater head could be achieved on Lakes Michigan-Huron. This proven technology has relatively low maintenance costs, low operational costs (limited to debris removal) and would not impede commercial navigation if placed outside the main navigation channel. There are numerous disadvantages to these structures, including sediment trapping on the upstream side, potential for downdrift impacts, physical Figure C Weir barrier to aquatic life, impediment to recreational boating, changes in crosschannel mixing, and potential water circulation problems during low supply periods. A construction cost was not provided in the historical reports reviewed for this study. River training structures reduce the channel width, and thus conveyance, with engineered structures. There is extensive global experience with a variety of structure types, including wing dykes, training walls and secondary benefit options (e.g. a marina basin constructed adjacent to the river bank). A typical cross-section of an armour stone training wall is presented in Figure D. If properly designed, these types of structures could reduce the overall conveyance of the St. Clair River and thus restore a desired backwater head. There are numerous advantages associated with river training structures, including low operational costs, limited impacts on commercial navigation, the configuration could lead to channel scouring and reduced dredging costs, riverbank deposition could create recreational opportunities, and habitat creation. River training structures can also have several disadvantages, including Figure D Sill local sedimentation, impacts on existing habitat, restricted access for recreational boating, excessive erosion in the region of flow concentration and development of ice jams. No historical costing information was provided in the reports reviewed but is expected to be of a similar order of magnitude to sill construction. Adaptive Management or Regulation Approaches Four regulation or adaptive management approaches for flow regulation on the St. Clair River are described, including control gates or inflatable weirs, ice boom deployment, conventional hydroelectric plant, and instream power generation. The ultimate goal of these structures is a flexible approach to flow modification, whether responding to changing management objectives or supply conditions. The feasibility of each technology option is reviewed. Control gates or inflatable weirs are reviewed simultaneously, as their configuration and operation would be very similar. A sketch of a typical

Page IV

Table A Summary Table of Various Approaches

Supports Adaptive Mgmt

Cost (2007 dollars)

Technical Effectiveness

Reliability Comments

Degree of Study to Date

Previous Applications

Compensation by sills

~$10-17 M
Effective unless filled with sediment
No operational cost, minimal maintenance cost Operation and maintenance generally limited to debris removal and sediment bypassing No operational cost, minimal maintenance cost
Extensively studied using desktop, physical, and mathematical models Conventional design but minimal studies completed for St. Clair river application Studied and preliminary designs proposed in conjunction with other options
None stated in references for this purpose

Varies by configuration

Effective but need to be combined with other options

Numerous

Training walls
Effective in all conditions
Compensation and control option

~$350 M

Relatively high operations and maintenance costs (~$2.8M Conceptual designs completed annually) Significant operations and maintenance cost - possibly offset by sale of electricity
Conventional hydroelectric dam
Not specified, Unknown but likely not feasible due to lack of head but very high
Not extensively studied for St. Clair river

Ice boom

~$3.7 M
Moderately effective, but Regular operations and Conventional design but dependant upon the presence maintenance costs (~$minimal studies completed for of ice and wind conditions annually) St. Clair river application Conventional design but minimal studies completed for St. Clair river application
Various locations worldwide, including Niagara river None stated in references for this purpose

Partial

Structure into Lake Huron to Lengthen River Channel

~$63 M

Moderately effective
No operational cost, minimal maintenance cost

Wing dikes

Conventional design but Various locations minimal studies completed for worldwide, including the St. Clair river application Mississippi river Various locations worldwide, including Black and Fox rivers

Inflatable weirs

Moderate operational cost, moderate maintenance cost
Not extensively studied for St. Clair River
In-stream power generation
Unknown at commercial scale

Unknown

Significant operations and maintenance cost - offset by sale of electricity

Figure 2. Submerged sill cross-sections used in 1960 WES model (from U.S. Waterways Experiment Station)
Of particular note to their effectiveness is the geometry and size of the structures. Physical model testing completed in the 1930s (Moore, 1931), and again in the 1960s (Franco and Glover, 1972) suggested that sills with a vertical upstream face are more effective at retarding flow than structures with an inclined upstream face. This is complicated by the fact that sedimentation moving downstream may collect along the upstream face of a vertical-faced sill, effectively creating a structure with an inclined upstream face. The number and spacing of the structures is also an important factor to consider in the design of a system that provides backwater head.
Structural Compensation Options for the St. Clair River 11238.000 Page 4
Submerged sills considered to date for installation on the St. Clair River have generally been fixed non-adaptable structures, providing impacts with a permanence that exists for the duration of the presence of the structures. They have the advantage that the crest elevations can be established below the draft clearances for commercial shipping, creating a solution that does not delay or impede commercial or recreational navigation once it is in place. Impacts to navigation interests would likely be more significant during construction unless construction were to occur during the winter. 2.1.2 Fixed Weirs
Fixed weirs are structures whose crest is at or very near the upstream water surface. It maintains backwater head by only allowing water to pass over it when the upstream water surface elevation exceeds the crest elevation (Schematics of typical cross sections are provided in Figure 3). Fixed weirs are a traditional technology; they are normally constructed from rock, concrete, timber, or steel. Some weirs are design with notches or other such features to allow some flow at lower water surface elevations.
Figure 3. Fixed weir types; (a) sharp-crested, (b) submerged sill, (c) Ogee-type, (d) broad crested (from UN Food and Agriculture Organisation)
Fixed weirs are non-adaptable structures (modern adjustable weirs, such as those constructed with inflatable rubber bladders are discussed in Section 3 of this report). As a result, their impact is permanent and not adjustable from the time of their installation until such time that they are removed from the river. Fixed weirs also do not allow very much sediment to pass over them; they can be an effective sediment trap. The lack of sediment transported downstream may cause downstream erosion if bed conditions allow - this is typically mitigated through sediment bypassing with maintenance dredging. When supplies are high, fixed weirs may allow some ice to pass over them, but in general ice is trapped on the upstream side of the weir.

Page 5

Fixed weirs are a conventional, proven technology incurring relatively small maintenance costs. Maintenance is usually limited to clearing debris collected on the upstream side of weirs and bypassing sediment, if necessary. Fixed weirs are a physical barrier to navigation. They also generally result in a hydraulic step between the upstream and downstream sides of the weir, making navigation difficult or impossible around the ends of the weir. Mitigation approaches to this typically involve the installation and operation of a lock, or a lengthened channel with roughness through which the hydraulic head difference is gradually recovered making navigation possible. 2.1.3 Training Walls

Figure 5. Cross section of conventional hydroelectric dam (courtesy Tomia)
A conventional hydroelectric dam is an obstruction to navigation, and a lock is required to allow vessel passage through the area. Conventional hydroelectric dams also trap sediment on the upstream side of them, potentially increasing the risk of erosion downstream from the structure. They also require relatively significant head differences, which leads to lower elevations and the necessity for compensation dredging downstream to accommodate required channel depths for navigation and other infrastructure, such as intakes and outfalls. 2.2.3 Submerged Training Wall with Inflatable Dam
Training walls are effective at directing flow, however their full effectiveness is not always needed. Flow requirements may vary seasonally or inter-annually, in response to high or low supplies, or alternatively in response to demands from other interests such as shoreline riparian landowners and navigation/boating. Training walls that are submerged have less effect than surface-piercing structures; placing a variable-crested structure on top of a submerged training wall crest has the
Structural Compensation Options for the St. Clair River 11238.000 Page 9
advantage of creating a training wall with adaptable impacts and effectiveness. One such example of these variable crests is an inflatable dam. Inflatable dams/weirs are discussed in more detail in Section 3.2 and Appendix B. The 1973 report considered training walls such as these for application on the St. Clair River. They had the advantage of being able to regulate the flow diversion effected by the walls in response to varying needs and interests. However, increased construction, operations and maintenance costs resulted in alternative solutions being proposed. 2.2.4 Ice booms
Ice on the surface of a river restricts the flow by reducing the channel cross-section. Ice jams (sometimes called ice gorges) can occur when drifting ice floats downstream and is caught at a point in the river with insufficient width or depth. Further ice piles up on top of the caught ice and a jam occurs sometimes significantly restricting flow in the river channel. The Crises Conditions Task Group report (1993) states that it is estimated that ice cover in the St. Clair River between 1962 and 1980 reduced flow by approximately 10,400 cfs (~295 cms) in the average winter month (December to April). Ice booms are tools used to control drifting ice, and prevent it from moving downstream. They are frequently used to protect structures that might otherwise be damaged by large ice pans drifting into them. Ice booms can create a small ice jam on their upstream side in some cases; the installation of an ice boom would increase the likelihood of minor ice jams occurring at the location of the boom itself and hence restrict flow that can go downstream. Hence if the ice boom were installed in the river itself, it could decrease channel conveyance. Conversely, installing the ice boom in Lake Huron would prevent most ice jams in the river and would have the effect of increasing average channel conveyance. The installation of an ice boom would provide some degree of seasonal flow control. Traditionally ice booms have been constructed from timber logs cabled or chained together. Newer ice booms are sometimes constructed from plastic or steel pontoons instead of timber ones. The IJC has experience with ice-boom operations: they regulate the use of the Lake Erie Niagara River ice boom. This steel ice boom is designed to trap ice and reduce the amount of ice that is allowed to pass downstream reducing the impact upon the power stations at Niagara Falls and damages to other marine infrastructure downstream in the river. Photographs of the Niagara River Ice boom are provided in Figure 6.

Some concepts have previously been considered and then immediately rejected for various reasons conventional hydroelectric dams are one such example. The most frequent cause for concern throughout the historic reports was of the impact upon commercial shipping. The costs associated with delays and added fuel consumption caused by transiting locks was to be avoided if at all possible. A series of dams and locks (some of them potentially being conventional hydroelectric dams) could have afforded compensation and regulation for the Michigan-Huron basin, however the impact upon commercial navigation was considered too great. In their 1926 report, the Joint Board of Engineers quantified the annual cost of the impact upon the shipping industry to be $762,000 (~$9,600,000 in 2007 dollars) however it is worth noting that shipping tonnages and the number and types of vessels is much different today than originally considered the annual impact calculated by the Joint Board of Engineers in 1926 is most likely not applicable to todays commercial shipping realities. None of the more recent documents reviewed for this report have quantified this cost.
Structural Compensation Options for the St. Clair River 11238.000 Page 17
Other drawbacks associated with conventional hydroelectric dam applications on the St. Clair River exist as well. Maintaining the water surface slope and water depths for existing waterfront infrastructure and navigation/boating interests along the St. Clair and Detroit River systems would result in a relatively small head difference at the power dam. Although this has not been discussed in the documents reviewed for this report, it is conceivable that the head difference would not be sufficient to recover the capital or ongoing operational costs associated with a conventional hydroelectric dam. In 1993, the Task Group 1 of Working Committee 3 concluded that the analysis of a single regulation structure (such as a dam) would provide no advantage over regulation schemes using multiple structures (IJC, 1993). 2.3.4 Lengthened Channel Structures in Lake Huron
Two different configurations for the extension of the channel length into Lake Huron were considered historically. The added channel length would decrease the ultimate conveyance of the river. The first such approach involved a single breakwater structure with multiple sills connecting the breakwater to the Lake Huron shore. This solution was discarded as being too expensive and an alternative solution lengthened the channel using two breakwaters each being 4900 ft (~1500 m long) connected to the Lake Huron shoreline with fixed weirs was considered. Moore (1931) estimated the cost at $5,000,000 (~$63,300,000 in 2007 dollars) and concluded that more financially efficient solutions could be found with the compensation by sills or compensation at Stag Island.

Page 18

Figure 10. Lengthened river channel through breakwaters installed on Lake Huron
It is worth noting that cutting off the supply of sediment coming from Lake Huron longshore sediment transport could result in increased channel erosion in the St. Clair River, thus reducing the ability of the works to generate backwater head in the Michigan-Huron basin. 2.3.5 Noted Environmental Impacts
The older reports have not discussed environmental impacts associated with the proposed works, however some issues were identified in the more recent reports. These impacts are listed here: The International Great Lakes Level Board (1973) noted that there were issues with sediment in the river testing above acceptable levels for Mercury and other contaminants. They recommended that any dredge spoil created by undertaking works be disposed of behind dikes. The International Great Lakes Level Board (1973) reveals that regulatory control of the flow in the St. Clair Delta could create an adverse effect on the environment at Anchor Bay on

Page 19

Lake St. Clair. Mitigation was proposed by specifying unimpeded flow around the end of the structures and flushing flows through the gated portions.

Page 20

SUMMARY OF EXTANT TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE
Section 3.0 will introduce a series of extant technologies that have not been addressed by previous studies into St. Clair River management measures.
River Training Structures Wing Dikes
Wing dikes are typically rock structures installed along the riverbanks perpendicular to the river flow. They have the effect of decreasing the channel width and reduce the channel conveyance capacity accordingly. They are often used to direct river flow towards a specific part of the channel where the increased flow rate erodes the riverbed maintaining a deeper channel and possibly reducing dredging requirements. They may also be used to train the river away from riverbanks and bed materials that are sensitive to erosion. Although wing walls are traditionally built as rock structures, they could be effectively built from other materials as well, such as steel sheet piles, concrete caissons, timber cribs, and float-supported impervious membranes. A variety of construction materials were considered for the design of flow-parallel training walls in the International Great Lakes Level Board 1973 report (IGLLB, 1973). They concluded that rock structures were the most proven and economical. It is also worth noting that rock structures also produce surfaces with voids often considered beneficial to fish habitat. Design specifics beyond structure type includes notches (gaps), orientation, spacing, and planform of the structures. Wing dikes are a conventional technology and have been used for centuries to control or manipulate river flow to societys advantage. There is no shortage of practical examples illustrating their installation and effectiveness. The Mississippi River contains thousands of wing dikes constructed and maintained by various districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Photos of installations on the Mississippi river are provided in Figure 11. Great Lakes examples of river training structures include the dikes constructed at the south end of the Detroit River and wing dikes on the Niagara River off the north end of Grand Island (Figure 12). The USACE has developed a variety of planning and design resources that are available to support conceptual design cases. In particular, a 2006 report prepared by the St. Paul District dedicates a whole chapter in their Environmental Design Handbook to the topic of wing dikes (USACE, 2006). A detailed erosion and sedimentation study undertaken with inputs from a 3D hydrodynamic model would be required to investigate wing dike impacts and effectiveness.

Page 21

Figure 11. Mississippi River wing dikes (from USACE, St.Louis and St.Paul Districts)

Page 22

Wing Dikes Niagara River

Navy Island Grand Island

Figure 12. Wing dike example on Niagara River near Grand Island (imagery ESRI iCube 2008)

Inflatable Weirs

Inflatable weirs are rubber-bladder structures anchored on their upstream side to a concrete foundation (see Figure 13 for a schematic). They were initially developed in the 1950s and are now considered a conventional technology wherever adjustable flow control or flood protection is desired. Modern inflatable weirs are usually built with an expected service life of approximately 30 years (Plaut et al., 1998) Inflatable weirs remain in place at all times and are inflated as required. They are typically inflated with air, water, or both, however for surface piercing structures in cold climates the full water inflation is not desirable due to the potential for the inflation fluid freezing. Compressors and pumps for the operations are normally located in a landside pump-house near the inflatable weir. Hybrids of inflatable weirs and control gates exist where an inflatable bladder acts as the control mechanism for a conventional steel gate (see Figure 14. Planning and design efforts for the installation of inflatable weirs on the St. Clair River has not been undertaken to date, however works proposed or constructed in the vicinity of the St. Clair river include the Port Huron/Black River Canal Gate Structure (Baird, 1993) and the Clinton River Cutoff Channel. It is likely that inflatable weirs could replace control gates in the adaptive management scenario presented in Section 2.3.2. Inflatable weirs could also act as submerged sills, however
Structural Compensation Options for the St. Clair River 11238.000 Page 23
evidence of their use in this capacity has not been uncovered. The inflatable weirs could be deflated for regular flushing of sediment, potentially addressing the concerns of reduced submerged sill efficacy in the event of sedimentation. Further investigation into the viability of this alternative would be required before an engineering opinion could be generated.
Figure 13. Inflatable weir schematic; (from Bridgestone Industrial)
Figure 14. Hybrid inflatable structure; air filled bladder supporting a conventional control gate (from Obermeyer Hydro Inc.)

Page 24

In-Stream Power Generation
In-stream power generation is a renewable energy that uses flowing water to generate electricity or pump water. In-stream devices are installed directly into the ambient flow of a river, tidal, or ocean current. Electricity is generated and fed back to the grid through a subsurface transmission line. Based on recent literature reviews (Baird 2006, and Baird 2007) it is expected that the installation of in-stream devices would reduce the channel conveyance, thus providing backwater head. However, it should be noted that we are not aware of any literature that investigates the devices specifically for this function. It is anticipated that the effect would be device-specific, would be dependant upon where in the river the units are installed, and the total number of units. During periods with high supply, the fixed mounted devices could be turned off, however the variability in backwater head is not known under this condition. Some devices could be removed from the water during periods of high supply. When compared with conventional hydroelectric power, and even with wind turbines, the technology involved with in-stream devices is relatively immature. No one device or type of device has yet proven to be preferred technology. There are presently several different types of designs available on the market. The first type involves a turbine placed such that the ambient flow acts directly on the turbine blades (directly driven, Figure 15), and the other design uses the ambient current to induce a vertical motion that is transferred to a turbine through a piston and hydraulic fluids (piston driven, Figure 16). One possible reason for the lack of convergence upon a single type of device is that large-scale commercial in-stream installations have not yet been developed. Presently, pilot sites are in place in the UK and Race Rocks in British Columbia, and proposals are in place to put pilot units into the Gulf Stream off the east coast of Florida, in the Bay of Fundy, and various locations in Asia. In-stream technology may be secured in place using two different approaches: bottom-mounted and anchor-tethered. The bottom-mounted structures rest directly on or are driven into the riverbed using conventional offshore structures. Anchor-tethered devices are buoyant, or have some means of keeping them off the bottom, and are tethered to the river bottom using traditional offshore anchors. Some of the devices can raise themselves out of the water, however these devices require surface-piercing foundations. Devices that do not use surface-piercing foundations could be placed in navigation channels at lower elevations than passing ships, which would be a distinct advantage for application in the St. Clair River. Maintenance operations generally require the units to be raised from the bottom. This increases the maintenance costs for configurations that do not allow the structure to raise out of the water on its own foundation. While the economic payback for in-stream power generation has yet to be proven, the devices have the potential to provide revenue through electricity sales to local utilities. The capital cost associated with the installation of these units on a commercial scale is not known yet, and would be highly device and location specific. A device selection approach has been published by DTI (2007) and could be used as a baseline example to develop device selection criteria specific for the St. Clair River. The development of a

Cons: The disadvantages associated with submerged sills are as follows: A mildly sloping upstream face on the sills has been found to significantly reduce the desired effect of generating backwater head. Sediment

Page 29

accumulation on upstream face may cause such a mildly sloping upstream face to develop. May trap sediment between sills, altering the sediment budget downstream (possibly leading to downstream erosion); Will impact commercial navigation during construction unless built in winter; Marine-based construction at seaway depths is costly compared with construction that can be undertaken from land; and May reduce the water surface profile downstream, with undesirable impacts upon depth-dependant existing infrastructure.
The cost associated with this installation has previously been assessed to be around $million. While this is significantly less than the costs associated with the full nine-structure regulation scheme, it is also significantly more than the cost associated with an ice boom. 4.2.2 Fixed Weirs
For the purposes of this analysis, the assumed configuration of fixed weirs in the St. Clair River is the same as that proposed in Figure 8, with the fixed weirs taking the place of the control gates. It is assumed that the crest elevations are optimized throughout the river channel to provide the required backwater head under mean net basin supply conditions. Engineering Feasibility: The efficacy of the weirs for providing backwater head compensation is dependant upon the optimization of the crest elevations and the length of the proposed structures. Assuming these two were optimized for mean net basin supplies, the weirs would be effective at providing the required backwater head. Pros: The advantages associated with fixed weirs are as follows: Relatively low maintenance costs; Low operational costs (limited to debris removal and occasional manual bypassing of sediment); Significant global experience with fixed weirs a proven technology; and Does not impede commercial shipping at the proposed locations.
Cons: The disadvantages associated with fixed weirs are as follows: Would require multiple structures throughout the river to maintain adequate water surface profile and safe navigation depths resulting in an escalated capital cost; Would be subjected to full ice loading pressures;

Page 30

Unless sediment is manually bypassed, the structure will trap sediment upstream of the weir, altering the sediment budget downstream (possibly leading to downstream erosion); Represents a physical barrier to pelagic marine life; Impedes recreational navigation in the immediate area and would require the installation of a lock or a small boat channel; Changes to the cross-channel mixing could impact water quality at source water intakes; Does not provide protection against flooding upstream of the structure during high net basin supplies; and It is unknown if a lack of flushing during periods of low supply could result in stagnant water on the downstream side of channels with the fixed weirs.

Page 34

Pros: The advantages associated with a conventional hydroelectric dam are as follows: Sale of generated electricity could offset capital and operations costs; and Regulation of the Michigan-Huron basin.
Cons: The disadvantages associated with a conventional hydroelectric dam are as follows: Very high capital cost; Would require major shifts in downstream water surface profiles in the St. Clair River to provide required head for efficient power generation; Would require massive dredging efforts downstream to accommodate modified water surface profile; Municipal and industrial infrastructure using the river (e.g. intakes and outfalls) would need to be re-constructed to accommodate modified water surface profile; Would require commercial shipping vessels to pass through a lock, delaying transit; Large habitat destruction would occur as previously wet areas would become dry and compensation dredging would damage habitat in remaining areas; Does not allow pelagic marine life to travel past the structure freely; and Traps incoming sediment upstream of the structure.
In-stream Power Generation
In-stream power generation is relatively immature and device selection along with ideal locations in the St. Clair River are not presently available. The discussion associated with their feasibility, pros, and cons is therefore necessarily broad. Further research into ideal locations and device selection could provide some additional guidance that would allow for a more thorough evaluation. Additional information on in-stream power generation can be found in Section 3.3 and Appendix B. Engineering Feasibility: It is not known whether in-stream power generation devices in the St. Clair River could provide the desired flow control to facilitate lake level regulation or adaptive management. It is envisioned that regulation would occur by using the turbines during periods when supplies were low, to restrict flow in the river and provide backwater head upstream. When supplies were high, the devices could be shut off, or raised out of the water to reduce their impact on flow restriction. It is most likely that should these devices be installed for the purpose of adaptive management, not full regulation, they would also be installed in conjunction with additional measures such as training walls.

Page 35

Pros: The advantages associated with in-stream power generation device(s) are as follows: Sale of generated electricity could offset capital and operations costs; Electricity production would be from a clean and renewable source with minimal air pollution; Electricity production is hedged against inflation as the cost of the water flow does not change; Can be installed in deeper portions below navigation channel, providing no impact upon commercial shipping; Relatively small riverbed habitat destruction; Could be installed at elevations below ice allowing full-year production without ice concerns; and Minimal sediment transport implications likely only local scour concerns.
Cons: The disadvantages associated with in-stream power generation device(s) are as follows: Uncertain impact upon backwater head; Unconventional technology contains cost uncertainties for capital, operations, and maintenance costs; Could not generate power when there is a need for increased channel conveyance (i.e. during periods of high supply). Fouling from fishing and other hardware could necessitate an exclusion area where fishing and anchoring is prohibited; Extensive sitting and device selection research would need to be undertaken; Designs with surface-piercing foundations would need to withstand ice forces; and A good understanding of lee-wakes from these devices is not available and as such some degree of uncertainty will surround the efficiency of units installed downstream of other units.

Comparison Summary

This report can only provide some general conclusions based on the review of existing reports and the literature available for extant technologies. Given the high costs associated with the installation of the works, any approach that can provide a secondary benefit (economic, social, environmental, etc.) is likely to have distinct advantages over approaches that provide only one functional purpose. Within this context, and given that historical reports have ultimately identified the need for river training devices to be installed to direct flow to regulating structures, a solution that uses a combination of multiple compensation and adaptive management approaches would appear to be preferable. As an example, in-stream power generation devices may provide a significant secondary benefit when installed with any of the reviewed compensation or adaptive approaches. It is also clear that some alternatives are no longer acceptable options. Conventional hydroelectric dams in particular would require far too great a change to the water surface profile along the length

Location Works discussed in this report occur in the south end of the Detroit River, within the Amherstburg channel. Location maps or schematics were not provided with the report.
Net Effect of Dredging and Compensation in Detroit River - 1965 11238.101

Page A7-1

No information with regards to the dike design or configuration planning was provided with the report.
The dikes discussed in this report were built during the years 1957 to 1959.
The report provides information on the effectiveness of the installed dikes. The effectiveness was referred to in relation to backwater compensation provided on Lake St. Clair. The report also discusses the changes to channel velocities as a result of the compensation project(s). The report suggests that the initial project over-compensated the backwater level in Lake St. Clair by 0.07 ft (~0.02 m), and that the later project resulted in a lowering of Lake St. Clair by 0.32 ft (~0.10 m). Combined, the net impact of the projects on Lake St. Clair was stated as a lowering of lake elevation of 0.25 ft (~0.08 m). The results were concluded from physical measurements at various gages along the length of the Detroit River. Separation between the impact of the dredging and the impact of the compensation efforts are not presented in the report only the net impact is reported. The report suggests that changes to the velocities in the navigation channel as a result of the compensation structures are negligible. No quantification of the backwater impacts upon the Michigan-Huron basin are provided.
No economic costs or benefits of the project are presented in this report.
No environmental costs or benefits are directly addressed in the report.
The report provides records of long-term averages for flow rate and water level measurements at various points along the Detroit River and in Lake St. Clair

Page A7-2

Not Applicable

Page A7-3

1972 Effects of Submerged Sills in the St. Clair River
Franco, J. and Glover, J. 1972. Effects of Submerged Sills in the St. Clair River; Hydraulic Model Investigation. Technical Report H-72-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

With their extensive use around the world and significant body of evidence proving their effectiveness, inflatable weirs and dams have become conventional technology. Works proposed in the vicinity of the St.Clair River include the Port Huron/Black River
Canal Gate Structure (Baird, 1993) and the Clinton River cutoff channel.

Page B2-3

The effectiveness of an inflatable weir at creating backwater head in the MichiganHuron basin has not been presented in any material reviewed for this report. It is assumed however, that the effectiveness would be comparable to the effectiveness of conventional control gates or fixed weirs. An installation in the St.Clair River would facilitate adaptive management, as the degree of inflation could be adjusted depending on flow conditions and management objectives. The installation of inflatable weirs to act as submerged sills was not encountered in literature reviewed for this report, however it is conceivable that they could function in that capacity. Further study would most likely be needed to determine if they could be hydraulically effective as submerged sills. In the inflated position, inflatable weirs will trap sediment on the upstream side of the dam. For the Clinton River inflatable weir, it was found that the inflatable structure may have contributed to sedimentation problems on the upstream side of the weir (Baird, 2005). In the completely deflated position, it is possible that flushing of sediment downstream could occur. This may reduce long-term maintenance. Inflated weirs would act as a barrier to navigation; small boat channels or locks adjacent to the structures would be required in a fashion similar to the recommendations of the International Great Lakes Level Board report (1972).
The economic costs or benefits associated with installing inflatable weirs on the St.Clair River have not been considered in the literature reviewed.
The environmental costs or benefits associated with installing inflatable weirs on the St.Clair River have not been considered in the literature reviewed.